The Supreme Court’s ruling is a very important expansion of the public’s right to access to justice and government accountability overall

Stage 2 of DWatch’s case will now proceed challenging Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on former PM Trudeau violating the ethics law in WE Charity grant approval

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 30, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch applauded the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous ruling on the Stage 1 appeal (SCC file #41576) in the court case it filed in June 2021.  The case challenges former federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling letting off former Prime Minister Trudeau even though participated in the WE Charity grant approval process where his spouse volunteered.

Democracy Watch was represented at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Stage 1 appeal by Sujit Choudry of Circle Barristers and Paul Daly, Professor and Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, even though the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider at Stage 1 whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors of fact and law in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The FCA subsequently issued a ruling in October 2024 that did not decide the partial privative clause issue but, instead, concluded (in paras. 79-92) that the Ethics Commissioner operates under Parliament and, therefore, appeals of errors of facts and law in Ethics Commissioner rulings should be filed with the Prime Minister and Parliament.  The SCC approved DWatch’s appeal application in spring 2025, and the appeal was heard on January 14-15, 2026 in Ottawa.

Democracy Watch’s legal arguments (and reply arguments) at the SCC contended that the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Ethics Commissioner does not operate under Parliament when enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and that Parliament has no legal role in reviewing the Commissioner’s rulings.  As the FCA acknowledged in its ruling, the Commissioner was established in 2004 to take decision-making power on alleged violations away from partisan politicians.

In addition, DWatch (and the eight citizen organizations that intervened in the SCC appeal – click here and see list under “Parties” tab) argued that it is essential under the Constitution and the rule of law principle that the courts can review decisions of tribunals like the Ethics Commissioner to ensure they are enforcing laws properly and that, as a result, partial privative clauses are unconstitutional.

The SCC ruled unanimously that privative clauses are unconstitutional (paras. 6-8, 37-38, 39-76 and 86), setting a precedent that will allow for court cases across Canada that challenge errors in the rulings of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the statute that governs it.

“In a powerful set of historically informed, carefully crafted reasons by Chief Justice Wagner that will be read across Canada and the common law world the Supreme Court has unanimously confirmed that all Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to go to court to challenge unlawful government action,” said Paul Daly, co-counsel for Democracy Watch, Professor and Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. “This decision skillfully weaves together common law tradition and Canadian constitutional principle to make clear that judicial review is the ultimate safeguard against arbitrary exercises of state power, with Canada’s superior courts and federal courts as its guardians.”

“In an era where executives around the world have sought to assert broad and unlimited powers that are not reviewable by the courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has resoundingly proclaimed that will not occur in Canada. In clear and unequivocal terms, the Supreme Court has affirmed legal powers, by definition, are limited powers, and that it is the constitutional duty of the provincial superior courts and the federal courts to rule on the legality of executive power,” said Sujit Choudry of Circle Barristers, co-counsel for Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court’s decision is of global significance, and will be closely studied by courts around the world. Privative clauses are now unconstitutional because they interfere with the power of courts to perform this solemn constitutional duty.”

The SCC’s unanimous ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case also sets a precedent (paras. 16, 22-38 and 77-88) that allows DWatch’s Stage 2 case to proceed challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau-WE Charity ruling, and also allows future cases challenging future Ethics Commissioner rulings.  Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on the Trudeau-WE Charity scandal.

“In the particular context of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Chief Justice’s reasons strongly emphasize the importance of court oversight of the legality of decisions made by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner without underplaying the important role of parliamentarians in also contributing to the maintenance of the highest ethical standards in federal public administration. It is a great day for the rule of law in this country,” said Daly.

“The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s decisions are no different than those of any other administrative decision-maker. While Parliament may ultimately determine the consequences of a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Federal Court of Appeal has the power to ensure the Commissioner acts lawfully,” said Choudry.

“Democracy Watch applauds the Supreme Court of Canada for ending a long-standing dispute over a key legal issue and setting a clear precedent that allows all future cases challenging errors in rulings by the Ethics Commissioner and, by extension, all agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals across Canada, which is a great victory for access to justice across the country that will help ensure that all administrative law entities uphold and enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Prime Minister, premiers and Cabinets across Canada often appoint unqualified people, sometimes mainly because they are ruling-party supporters, as lapdogs to head up agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals, and have also shielded them from lawsuits even when they fail to properly enforce key laws that are aimed at stopping abuses of power by those same politicians and government officials, as well as laws that protect Canadian’s human rights, and the rights of consumers, workers, tenants, social welfare recipients, immigrants and many others, and protect communities and the environment,” said Conacher.  “It is very important for the public’s right of access to justice, and for government accountability overall, that the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that public has a clear right to challenge these agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals in court whenever their rulings contain serious errors.”

“Democracy Watch also applauds the Supreme Court for overturning the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling and allowing its case to proceed challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that let off Prime Minister Trudeau for violating the federal government ethics law by participating in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “It is an important step in government ethics accountability that the Supreme Court made it clear that, in direct contrast to the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling, that having appeals of errors in a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner go to the Prime Minister and MPs is not allowed under the federal government’s ethics law and also does not make sense, especially when the ruling, as in this case, involves the Prime Minister who would have been judging his own actions.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign